POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
Juvenile Life Without Parole:
An Overview
Most of the approximately 2,500 individuals sentenced as juveniles to life without
the possibility of parole now have a chance for release in the wake of recent
Supreme Court decisions. The choice to allow teenagers to receive the harshest
available sentence is not shared among all states. Sixteen states have banned life
sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles; in a handful of other states,
no one is serving the sentence.
Following the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in
Miller v. Alabama,1 states and the federal government
are required to consider the unique circumstances
of each juvenile defendant in determining an
individualized sentence. Montgomery v. Louisiana2 in
2016 ensures that the decision applies retroactively
to those people sentenced prior to Miller. For juveniles,
the use of life sentences without the possibility of
parole, as a mandatory minimum, is unconstitutional.
of mandatory life without parole, and applied the
decision retroactively. In 2012, the Court ruled that
judges must consider the unique circumstances of
each juvenile offender, banning mandatory sentences
of life without parole for all juveniles; in 2016, this
decision was made retroactive to those sentenced
prior to 2012.
Research on adolescent brain development confirms
the commonsense understanding that children
are different from adults in ways that are critical to
identifying age appropriate criminal sentences. This
understanding – Justice Kennedy called it what
“any parent knows”3 – was central to four recent
Supreme Court decisions excluding juveniles from
the harshest sentencing practices. The most recent,
Montgomery, emphasized that the use of life without
parole (mandatorily or not) should only be reserved for
those juveniles whose offenses reflected “irreparable
corruption,”4 a ruling that Justice Scalia (in dissent)
wrote may eventually “eliminat[e] life without parole
for juvenile offenders.”5
The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles cannot be
sentenced to death, writing that the death penalty
is a disproportionate punishment for the young;
immaturity diminishes their culpability, as does their
susceptibility to outside pressures and influences.
Lastly, their heightened capacity for reform means
that they are entitled to a separate set of punishments.
The court also held that the nation’s “evolving
standards of decency” showed the death penalty for
juveniles to be cruel and unusual; 12 states banned
the death penalty in all circumstances, and 18 more
banned it for juvenile offenders.6 The Roper ruling
affected 72 juveniles on death row in 12 states.7
Between 1976 and the Roper decision, 22 defendants
were executed for crimes committed as juveniles.8
SUPREME COURT RULINGS
Since 2005, Supreme Court rulings have accepted
adolescent science and banned the use of capital
punishment for juveniles, limited life without parole
sentences to homicide offenders, banned the use
ROPER V. SIMMONS, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
GRAHAM V. FLORIDA, 130 S. CT. 2011 (2010)
Having banned the use of the death penalty for
juveniles in Roper, the Court left the sentence of life
without parole as the harshest sentence available for
The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org
1
POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
States that have banned or limited the use of juvenile life without parole sentences, 2016
Banned JLWOP
Source: Data collected by The Sentencing Project
offenses committed by people under 18. In Graham
v. Florida, the Court banned the use of life without
parole for juveniles not convicted of homicide. The
ruling applied to at least 123 prisoners – 77 of whom
had been sentenced in Florida, the remainder in 10
other states.9 As in Roper, the Court pointed to the
rare imposition of a particular punishment to prove
that the punishment is unusual.10
Court precedent recognizes that non-homicide
offenses do not warrant the most serious punishment
available.11 “The concept of proportionality is central
to the Eighth Amendment,” wrote Justice Kennedy.12
Thus, having defined the maximum punishment for
all juvenile offenders (life without parole), the Court
ruled that the harshest punishment must be limited
to the most serious category of crimes (i.e., those
involving homicide).
No JLWOP Prisoners
The Court called life without parole “an especially
harsh punishment for a juvenile … A 16-year-old and
a 75-yearold each sentenced to life without parole
receive the same punishment in name only.”13 Limiting
the use of life without parole did not guarantee
such individuals would be released; it guaranteed a
“meaningful opportunity” for release.
MILLER V. ALABAMA AND JACKSON V.
HOBBS, 132 S. CT. 2455 (2012)
Following Roper’s exclusion of the death penalty for
juveniles and Graham’s limitation on the use of life
without parole, approximately 2,500 offenders were
serving sentences of life without parole for crimes
committed as juveniles, all of whom were convicted
of homicide-related offenses.
The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org
2
POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
In 2012, deciding Miller and Jackson jointly, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that, for juveniles, mandatory
life without parole sentences violate the Eighth
Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan
emphasized that judges must be able to consider
the characteristics of juvenile defendants in order to
issue a fair and individualized sentence. Adolescence
is marked by “transient rashness, proclivity for risk,
and inability to assess consequences,” all factors
that should mitigate the punishment received by
juvenile defendants.14
Adolescence is marked by
“rashness, proclivity for risk, and
inability to assess consequences.”
MONTGOMERY V. LOUISIANA 577 U.S. (2016)
The Miller ruling affected mandatory sentencing laws
in 28 states and the federal government. States had
been mixed in interpreting the retroactivity of Miller.
Fourteen state Supreme Courts15 ruled that Miller
applied retroactively while seven other states16 ruled
that Miller was not retroactive. In addition, California,
Delaware, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, and
Wyoming passed juvenile sentencing legislation that
applied retroactivity.17
The question was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court
in the case of 68-year old Henry Montgomery,18 who
has been imprisoned in Louisiana with no chance of
parole since 1963, a “model member of the prison
community.”19 Justice Kennedy, writing for a 6-3
majority, noted that the Court, in Roper, Graham,
and Miller, found that “children are constitutionally
different from adults in their level of culpability.”20
Moreover, the severest punishment must be reserved
“for the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose
crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility.”21
States can remedy the unconstitutionality of
mandatory juvenile life without parole sentences by
permitting parole hearings rather than resentencing
the approximately 2,100 people whose life sentences
were issued mandatorily.22, 23
LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES TO MILLER
Since 2012, 21 states have changed their laws for
juvenile offenders convicted of homicide (including
felony murder). All but four had previously required
life without parole in these circumstances. These
new laws provide mandatory minimums ranging
from a chance of parole after 15 years (as in Nevada
and West Virginia) to 40 years (as in Texas and
Nebraska). Thirty-four states still allow life without
parole as a sentencing option for juveniles. In most
states, the question of virtual life without parole has
yet to be addressed.
PEOPLE SERVING JUVENILE LIFE
WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCES
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia do not
have any prisoners serving life without parole, either
due to laws prohibiting the sentence or because
there are not any juveniles serving the sentence at
this time. Thus, while 34 states allow the sentence,
just four – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Louisiana
and California – account for about half of JLWOP
sentences. (Following the passage of California’s SB
9 in 2013, most of that state’s juvenile life-sentenced
prisoners are being resentenced.)
CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES
The life experiences of the approximately 2,500
people serving juvenile life sentences vary, but
they are often marked by very difficult upbringings
with frequent exposure to violence; they were often
victims of abuse themselves. Justice Kagan, in
the Miller ruling, ruled that Alabama and Arkansas
erred because a mandatory sentencing structure
does not “tak[e] into account the family and home
environment.”24 The petitioners in the cases, Kuntrell
Jackson and Evan Miller, both 14 at the time of their
crimes, grew up in highly unstable homes. Evan Miller
was a troubled child; he attempted suicide four times,
starting at age 6.25 Kuntrell Jackson’s family life was
“immers[ed] in violence: Both his mother and his
grandmother had previously shot other individuals.”26
His mother and a brother were sent to prison. The
defendant in Graham, Terrance Graham, had parents
who were addicted to crack cocaine.27
The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org
3
POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
In 2012, The Sentencing Project released findings
from a survey of people sentenced to life in prison
as juveniles and found the defendants in the above
cases were not atypical.28
• 79% witnessed violence in their homes regularly
• 32% grew up in public housing
• 40% had been enrolled in special education classes
• Fewer than half were attending school at the time
of their offense
• 47% were physically abused
• 80% of girls reported histories of physical abuse
and 77% of girls reported histories of sexual abuse
RACIAL DISPARITIES
Racial disparities plague the imposition of JLWOP
sentences.29 While 23.2% of juvenile arrests for
murder involve an African-American suspected of
killing a white person, 42.4% of JLWOP sentences are
for an American-American convicted of this crime.
White juvenile offenders with African-American
victims are only about half as likely (3.6%) to receive
a JWLOP sentence as their proportion of arrests for
killing an African-American (6.4%).
COST OF LIFE SENTENCES
Aside from important justice considerations, the
financial cost of JLWOP sentences is significant.
A life sentence issued to a juvenile is designed to
last longer than a life sentence issued to an older
defendant.
Housing juveniles for a life sentence requires
decades of public expenditures. Nationally, it costs
$34,135 per year to house an average prisoner. This
cost roughly doubles when that prisoner is over 50.30
Therefore, a 50-year sentence for a 16-year old will
cost approximately $2.25 million.
WHAT MAKES YOUTH DIFFERENT?
In amici briefs written on behalf of the defendants in
Roper, Graham, Miller, and Montgomery organizations
representing health professionals, such as the
American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry
and the American Psychological Association,
explained current research on immature brains.
In Miller, Justice Kagan noted that adolescence
is marked by “immaturity, impetuosity, and failure
to appreciate risks and consequences,” all factors
that limit an adolescent’s ability to make sound
judgments. Justice Kagan cited Graham and J. D. B.
v. North Carolina31 in noting that juvenile defendants
are at a substantial disadvantage in criminal
proceedings; they are less able than adults to assist
in their own defenses (working constructively with
counsel) and they are likely to respond poorly to the
high pressures of interrogation. Even before Roper,
states routinely recognized differences between
juveniles and adults in other contexts. Almost
every state prohibits juveniles from voting, buying
cigarettes and alcohol, serving on juries, and getting
married without parental consent. Teenagers’ drivers
licenses are typically restricted through age 18.
The Graham decision emphasized the importance
of giving juvenile offenders a chance to become
rehabilitated. These individuals have a substantial
capacity for rehabilitation, but many states deny this
opportunity: approximately 62% of people sentenced
to life without parole as juveniles reported not
participating in prison programs32 in large part due to
state prison policies that prohibit their participation
or limited program availability. They typically receive
fewer rehabilitative services than other prisoners.33
MOMENTUM FOR REFORM
Eliminating juvenile life without parole does not
suggest guaranteed release of these offenders.
Rather, it would provide that an opportunity for review
be granted after a reasonable period of incarceration,
one that takes into consideration the unique
circumstances of each defendant. In Montgomery,
the Court ruled that “allowing those offenders to be
considered for parole ensures that juveniles whose
crimes reflected only transient immaturity – and
who have since matured – will not be forced to serve
a disproportionate sentence in violation of the 8th
Amendment.”34
The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org
4
POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
In many other countries the period before a mandated
review is 10 to 15 years.35 If adequate rehabilitation has
not occurred during these years in prison, as decided
by experts, the individual may remain in prison and
his/her case be reviewed again in another few years.
Nor is it appropriate to eliminate life sentences in
name only, replacing them with excessively lengthy
prison terms that can reasonably expected to last for
an offender’s entire life. There is mounting support
for such reform in select states. Motivated by the
Miller decision, the state of California (home to one of
the largest populations of JLWOP defendants) now
affords prisoners a meaningful chance at parole after
15 to 25 years if their crime occurred when they were
a juvenile. Reforms are underway in other states as
well. Sentences that close the door on rehabilitation
and second chances are cruel and misguided.
ENDNOTES
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
577 U.S. ___2016 (2016)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005).
Roper at 560.
Montgomery. Dissent of Justice Scalia (slip op.) at 15.
Roper at 560.
Death Penalty Information Center. U. S. Supreme
Court: Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633. http://www.
deathpenaltyinfo.org/u-s-supreme-court-roper-vsimmons-no-03-633.
8 Death Penalty Information Center. Facts About the
Death Penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
documents/ FactSheet.pdf.
9 Graham at 2024.
10 In Graham and Roper, the Court also pointed to the
overwhelming international consensus against the
harshest punishments.
11 Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008).
12 Graham at 2021.
13 Graham at 2028.
14 Graham at 2465.
15 Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas,
and Wyoming.
16 Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, and Pennsylvania.
17 Rovner, J. (2014). Slow To Act: State Responses to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2012 Supreme Court Mandate on Life Without Parole.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
18 Montgomery v. Louisiana, petition 14-280.
19 Montgomery Slip Op. at 21.
20 Montgomery Slip Op. at 22.
21 Montgomery Slip Op. at 17.
22 Montgomery Slip Op. at 21.
23 Gately, G. (2015, March 23). Supreme Court Agrees
to Hear Miller Retroactivity Issue. Juvenile Justice
Information Exchange.
24 Miller at 2468.
25 Miller at 2462.
26 Miller at 2468.
27 Graham at 2018.
28 Nellis, A. (2012). The lives of juvenile lifers: Findings
from a national survey. Washington, D.C.: The
Sentencing Project.
29 Nellis, A. (2012).
30 ACLU (2012, June 13). “At America’s Expense: The
Mass Incarceration of the Elderly.” Available at https://
www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/report-americasexpense-mass-incarceration-elderly
31 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011)
32 Nellis, A. (2012).
33 Boone, B. (2015). Treating adults like children:
Resentencing adult juvenile lifers after Miller v.
Alabama. Minnesota Law Review, 99(3), 1159-1194.
34 Montgomery Slip Op. at 21.
35 American Law Institute (2010). Model penal code:
Sentencing: Council draft No. 3. Philadelphia,
American Law Institute.
This briefing paper was written by Joshua Rovner, State Advocacy
Associate at The Sentencing Project. Updated February 2016.
1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
The Sentencing Project works for a fair and effective U.S. justice
system by promoting reforms in sentencing policy, addressing
unjust racial disparities and practices, and advocating for
alternatives to incarceration.
sentencingproject.org
The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org
5